Open AccessComparison of iSED and Ves‐Matic Cube 200 Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Measurements With Westergren Method
Author(s) -
Boğdaycioğlu Nihal,
Yilmaz Fatma Meric,
Sezer Sevilay,
Oğuz Esra
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.21786
Subject(s) - erythrocyte sedimentation rate , sedimentation , medicine , nuclear medicine , surgery , geology , sediment , paleontology
Background The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test is performed widely in laboratories. Besides the traditional Westergren method, new methods have been developed for ESR measurements. We aimed to compare the instruments using new methods, iSED (Alcor Scientific) and Ves‐Matic Cube 200 (Diesse Diagnostica Senese, Italy) with the Westergren method. Methods Blood samples from 136 patients were taken into EDTA tubes for automated analyzers and citrated tubes for Westergren method. Patients were divided into three groups— low, medium, and high—according to their sedimentation rates. Precision, stability, and interference studies of the methods were performed. Results The iSED sedimentation method ( n = 136) yielded a slope of (0.61–0.84), with an intercept of (−2.32 to 1.89), which resulted in a mean bias of 13; and the Ves‐Matic Cube 200 method ( n = 136) yielded a slope of (0.85–1.00), with an intercept of (0.00–3.07), which resulted in a mean bias of 1.4 in Passing–Bablok regression analysis compared to the reference method. Conclusion iSED sedimentation showed a poor correlation and a high bias (>10%) with the Westergren method, and Ves‐Matic Cube 200 method showed a higher correlation and a lower bias than the iSED device when compared with Westergren reference method. These instruments should be carefully monitored.